- Microsoft research projects to improve our lives
- Outlook '09
- IBM employees buzzing about layoff rumors
- AT&T builds $23M IPv6 network for U.S. military
- Is VoIP dead?
When the dust settled in the lab after two long months of testing Microsoft’s Hyper-V and VMware’s ESX in the areas of performance, compatibility, management and security, it all boiled down to two issues: experience and religion.
VMware ESX took home our Clear Choice award because in our performance and qualitative analysis of the hypervisor and the first tier of management tools offered by each vendors it showed depth and maturity while Microsoft’s Hyper-V’s components were both very Windows-focused and very rough.
Performance, as reported earlier this month, heavily favored VMware, although Hyper-V edged out ESX in a few contests.
On the compatibility front, Microsoft’s Hyper-V’s early lead in the number of supported hardware platforms (based on the widespread of support for Windows 2008 Server itself) is completely offset by a dearth of support for non-Windows virtual machine (VM) operating systems. While VMware’s supported hardware list is shorter, its support of a comparatively vast number of operating systems made us cheer (see compatibility story).
VMware’s Virtual Center management platform is also mature and straightforward in how an administrator can use it to control resident VMs on a VMware host. VMware’s Virtual Infrastructure Client (VIC) is the administrative user interface to the VMware Virtual Center platform.
Microsoft’s System Center-Virtual Machine Manager (SC-VMM) 2008 (we tested a very late beta version which Microsoft guaranteed was feature complete) works with very strong ties to the underlying Active Directory and has an interface that fits right into Microsoft’s System Center scheme, so administrators won’t have to work hard to understand how it works. That said, things from standard management tasks such as viewing simple settings for a VM host to much touted advances features like the ability to migrate ESX VMs to Hyper-V caused SC-VMM to crash repeatedly during testing.
In terms of the security options for these hypervisor environments, we found that both vendors need to beef up their authentication protection schemes and provide a designated, secure store for VM images.
Comments (5)
Supported hardware list does not tell the full storyBy Anonymous on October 3, 2008, 3:19 amOne factor that seems to be forgotten when comparing hardware support for the platform, is that Hyper-V is only supported on hardware with virtualization support...
Reply | Read entire comment
Is it fair to knock-out a preproduction software with a releasedBy Anonymous on October 2, 2008, 6:24 pmThis comparison should have waited for production environments from both parties, in this way it is unfair, even in the title.
Reply | Read entire comment
No Doubt MSFT is behind, but this article is hardly compellling.By Anonymous on October 1, 2008, 8:50 pmI like VMWare and Hyper-V, but I wouldn't look to this article to build an educated opinion on which I should use. In the enterprise, there is room for both. If...
Reply | Read entire comment
... and what about XenServer?By Anon on September 30, 2008, 10:29 amWhy only compare ESX and Hyper-V? XenServer seems to us to be mature, very full-featured, and priced right. For our money, this looks like the one to beat. It...
Reply | Read entire comment
Where was the knock-out?By Anonymous on September 30, 2008, 5:38 amThe feature-by-feature comparisons looked pretty similar except the price, assuming the bugs are worked out of the VMM beta you tested. There was no mention of...
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments